WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama nixed a bill Friday that
would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the
government of Saudi Arabia, arguing it undermined national
security and setting up the possibility that Congress might
override his veto for the first time of his presidency.

The bill had sailed through both chambers of Congress with
bipartisan support, clearing the final hurdle just days before
the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000
people. But the White House said the bill, which doesn't refer
specifically to Saudi Arabia, could backfire by opening up the
U.S. government and its officials to lawsuits by anyone accusing
the U.S. of supporting terrorism, rightly or wrongly.

"I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," Obama wrote to the Senate
in a veto message about the bill, known as the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. But, he said, "the JASTA would be
detrimental to U.S. national interests more broadly, which is why
I am returning it without my approval."

The move paves the way for Congress to try to override the veto,
which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate.
Previous attempts to overturn Obama's vetoes have all been
unsuccessful.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., indicated Thursday
that there was sufficient support in the House to override
Obama's veto. Yet the White House has worked assiduously to try
to peel off supporters, and said Friday it was unclear whether
enough had defected to avert an override.

With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign ahead of the
November election, a vote could come early next week. Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would
take up the override "as soon as practicable in this work
period."

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate's No. 3 Democrat and
a traditional Obama ally, came out swinging against Obama's
veto while predicting lawmakers would reverse it "swiftly and
soundly."

"The families of the victims of 9/11 deserve their day in
court, and justice for those families shouldn't be thrown
overboard because of diplomatic concerns," Schumer said.

A coalition of 9/11 victims' families, meanwhile, said they
were "outraged and dismayed." In a response circulated by their
lawyers, the families insisted the bill would deter terrorism,
"no matter how much the Saudi lobbying and propaganda machine
may argue otherwise."

Though the concept of sovereign immunity generally shields
governments from lawsuits, the bill creates an exception that
allows foreign governments to be held responsible if they
support a terrorist attack that kills U.S. citizens on American
soil. Opponents say that's a slippery slope considering that
the U.S. is frequently accused wrongly by its foes of
supporting terrorism.

"Americans are in countries all over the world," House Armed
Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican, wrote
Friday in a letter urging colleagues not to support a veto.
"Many of those countries do not respect the rule of law, and we
cannot expect their responses to be as measured and narrow as
ours."

Fifteen of the 19 men who carried out the attacks were Saudi
nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying
lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court for
any role elements of Saudi Arabia's government may have had in
the attacks. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East,
strongly objected to the bill.

Obama long had objected, too, warning that if U.S. citizens are
allowed to take the Saudis into court, then foreign countries
could do the same to the United States, its diplomats and its
service members. The administration was also apprehensive about
undermining a longstanding yet difficult relationship with
Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis as a counter to
Iran's influence in the region as well as to help combat the
spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East.

Since the bill's passage, the White House has lobbied
aggressively to persuade lawmakers to withdraw support, and
found some sympathetic listeners. The bill had passed by voice
vote — meaning lawmakers didn't have to go on the record with
their positions — and the White House was hoping the prospect
of a recorded vote would lead some Democrats to reconsider
publicly rebuking their president.

The
'Tribute in Lights' shines on the skyline of lower Manhattan in
New York, September 11, 2006, as the fifth anniversary of the
September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center is
observed.Reuters

Debate about the bill has spilled onto the presidential
campaign trail, as candidates vie to appear tough on terrorism.
The issue is one of a few where Democrat Hillary Clinton has
publicly disagreed with Obama, with her campaign saying Friday
that she supports efforts to "hold accountable those
responsible" for the attacks.

In the run-up to Obama's veto, the White House said the system
the U.S. uses to identify and punish countries that support
terrorism was set by law and is more effective than a
"patchwork" of legal decisions. Yet the bill's proponents
disputed arguments of a boomerang effect if the measure were to
become law.

The bill had triggered a perceived threat by Saudi Arabia to
pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy if it was
enacted. But Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir
denied in May that the kingdom made any threats over the bill.
He said his country had merely warned that investor confidence
in the U.S. would shrink if the bill became law.

The House vote on Sept. 9 came two months after Congress
released 28 declassified pages from a congressional report into
9/11. The pages reignited speculation over links that at least
a few of the attackers had to Saudis, including government
officials. The allegations were never substantiated by later
U.S. investigations into the terrorist attacks.